Comments by "Aidan B" (@aidanb58) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@dreisiglps2451
"TIKs research." That's hilarious, how you seem to think denialism and cherry picking constitutes "research." We've already been over this, stop deflecting. Collectivism is a nonsense term, nonsensically applied, socialism is "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole," individualism is any system or philosophy that advocates for the well being of the individual as a top priority, capitalism is defined as a system where the means of production are in private hands. The right is defined by an adherence to strict or fluid hierarchy, the left a rejection of hierarchy. Fascism is a far right, ultranationalist authoritarian ideology, and nazism is hitler's german version of that. You done making me do your work for you?
3
-
3
-
3
-
@damianbylightning6823
I'm sorry, all of this is provably and laughably false, and utterly so. Left and right are terms with concrete meanings, even if you don't like said meanings. Socialism is a left wing ideology, wholly and objectively.
You are trying to redefine socialism to be more than a political ideology, but a state of being, some sinister enemy to whatever ideological system you personally espouse, and it's sad. Pure socialism has nothing to do with pure race.
The fact is, once things went beyond simply liberal-conservative differences in your mind, they no longer made sense to you, and thus you tried to abandon them, to run away from the objective facts observable within said classifications. Socialism is it's own ideology, with influences from other systems yes, but it is not some patchwork of previous ideologies, but an entirely new ideology and historical movement.
You don't seem to know what socialism is, nor do you have any sort of interest in attempting to define socialism as anything but a nebulous, impossible concept.
3
-
Ah, another person who claims to have been swayed by TIKs arguments, and yet doesn't even have a passing knowledge of any opposing positions or arguments. It's ok dude, you can just admit you agreed with him before you even saw the video. I know he wants to pretend he's "changing minds," but the ideological echo chamber of his comment section has long since swept that myth aside. Why exactly are you using the phrase "upset someone actually read the books" when, if you had watched the video, you would know that TIK spends most of the video arguing against the books you are attempting to rely on the authority of? "Watch the video" isn't an argument, and it's an admission of failure when used on those that clearly have.
Someone needs to come up with a real argument.
Someone needs to come up with a real argument. Someone needs to come up with a real argument. Someone needs to come up with a real argument. Someone needs to come up with a real argument.
And it's you.
Oh, and to the others:
The problem is, the notion of "the un-owned" was likely purposefully left out of TIK's video, because it opens up numerous questions that I feel he isn't quite ready to answer. After all, socialism historically has a lot more to do with the "unowned" than public ownership. Something being unowned, in this sense, means it is not owned by one person, and is not controlled by one group to the exclusion of others, but is either owned, operated, or benefitted from by a large number of people, none of which hold exclusive power over it. The sun. The air. The land, some might argue. Something that is, say, collectively operated. Now, if we were to apply your definitions strictly, we'd have to contend with the fact that yes, most air is publicly owned, since it's "owned" and used by large groups with no private individual control over it. However, even you seem to be unwilling to go that far, which tells me that there's a bit of hope for you. In any case, the point here is that it's not as simple as "public vs private," and that socialism isn't just "when public ownership." Property that you described as "un-owned," as in excluding none and used by all, is a lot closer to what socialists actually want.
also
You can't even get your own statements consistent. You assert that, in fact, it's not actually the group or individual owning that matters, it's the dominant system in place that matters. According to you, a "private individual" being on top of a "public hierarchy" makes them then a... public individual. Something that is oxymoronic, according to your definition. Putting aside your ignorance of the fact that what the Royal Family does with their private property is actually deeply important to the "public sphere," your contradiction here is obvious. You're asserting that what matters isn't the owner, but the system under which they own. Therefore, a private business in a "public" supply chain must be "public." A private business that at all interacts with the government, in support or opposition, must be "public." And a dictator, if they had total, sole control over the country, with unceasing obedience from their subjects, is as "private" as it gets. Unless, of course, you want to make an artificial distinction that neither you nor TIK have previously admitted to, that being that it isn't as simple as "individual vs group." Not even to mention the fact that any "public" entity within a private economy would now, of course, be private due to them sitting atop, benefitting from, and acting in accordance to the desires of, the private market.
3
-
@Sumoniggro
No, child, the difference is that i'm right, and i've provided it. In any case, it isn't, though. The community as a whole is not the state, if they were one and the same, these wouldn't be monstrous dictatorships at all, as they would have the full backing of the people. The public can, and already does, collectively own things without a state, and there's no need for a dictatorship to enforce a system like that, in fact, that most often directly counters the goals of the socialists in these cases. The nazis were opposed to socialists, communists, liberals, the left, and so on because they're complete ideological opposites, the nazis participate in and justify the ideology of the right. The fact that you have to misrepresent both the nazis and the socialists to try to equate them says a hell of a lot. In any case, you clearly haven't done any research given that the nazis despised total control of economics and actively argued against it, hence their horrendous failure of an economy. I'm sorry to say you don't know what socialism is, don't know who the far right nazis were, and don't know the first thing about human nature.
3
-
Few points of rebuttal, structures in a much more concise way because jesus that was a block of text to get through.
1. TIK does have the problem of defining all capitalism as liberal/libertarian, which is certainly not the full history of the ideology or term, though he goes a step further even - defining capitalism as incompatible with even basic human organization and society, and arguing not just for stateless capitalism, but for total isolationism of each individual and family as the only "true" form of capitalism.
2. The modern conservative parties are conservative, just not the same type as the old conservatives, the shifting goalpost of conservatism is a feature, not a glitch.
3. Socialism isn't necessarily opposed to individualism, nor is the right necessarily in favor of it.
4. Capitalism isn't the means of production, though many means of production are considered capital in the modern day.
5. TIK's "X doesn't understand Y" statements can be better translated as "I don't agree with X on Y"
6. Capitalism isn't the opposite of mercantilism, they are both just forms and stages of eachother, and capitalism created the need for slavery just as much as it eventually dispersed of it, though the movement of abolitionism was more often than not opposed by capitalists and prized by anti-capitalists.
7. Profits going to "the public" (not public ownership) is not state ownership, and communism is a stateless, classles, moneyless society. Furthermore, it is absolutely possible to be a socialist that advocates for social ownership of individual industry, which has nothing to do with the fascist idea of private corporations.
8. I'm no socialist but this next point you make is... odd. First off, socialists generally don't go as far as to assert that everyone will own an equal amount of everything under socialism, as in, literally everything. Socialists call for ownership of the means of production by the community as a whole, not the ownership of every tool, game, pet, ect within. There will always be a need to trade and work for the smaller, voluntary things, and that's built into socialist ideology. Furthermore, if everyone did have what they needed, and had no desire and no need to trade... why is this a bad thing? I mean, we trade because people want and need things. If they no longer want or need anything, trade isn't necessary. We have systems of trade not because trade by itself is mutually beneficial, but because it is in the modern day.
9. Market socialism exists, and nations are just lines on a map.
10. Marx wasn't actually all that interested in "equality," nor does the labor theory of value only see value in every case as only the labor by an individual that goes into said product/commodity
11. Capitalism can't be "observed in nature," nor is it the natural state of man. If one goes back to a time before nation states an centralized force, they see nothing of the private property and capital of today. They see a sort of mutualism, social ownership of property in all but the most necessary cases, trade conducted on individual bases not a central currency or standard of trade. Humans weren't the only hominids that traded, and trading for mutual benefit is not exclusive to capitalism, in fact both Marx and Kropotkin wrote on this stage of humanity in detail, calling it either "mutualism" or "primitive communism," and felt that it was a better system as it lacked the bureaucracy and complexity of modern capitalism, and was far more in line with their views.
12. Socialism vs capitalism isn't "raid vs trade," given that socialists literally prize the system that you're describing as the "natural" form of capitalism, the "Trade" in this analogy. I mean socialists are literally appealing to the workers, what does that have to do with taking from others to give to those that don't produce?
13. God, no. Socialism doesn't have much at all in common with colonialism, and while there have been self-professed socialist nations that engage in imperialist practices, the process of colonialism is historically one that belongs to the right, and the first capitalists. European countries went to these other places often explicitly for the purpose of greater trade networks and profit, and while they often forced people into those arrangements, it was sure as hell not incompatible with capitalism, who had open adherents doing much the same later. I fail to see how setting up shop in another country for the sole purpose of exporting and importing goods along trade networks for private profit is socialist. Your problem here is labelling socialism as theft, and then somehow deciding everything else you call theft must be socialist.
14. And again - capitalism didn't put an end to colonialism, colonialism ended due to constant warfare, statist intervention and treaties to back off, and the simple fact that there was nowhere left to colonize. Colonialism enriched capitalism, and to this day most of the richest capitalist countries in the world remain that way as a legacy of their colonialist exploits. It was usually (though not always) capitalists arguing for colonialism and anti-capitalists (though not always) against it. Seriously, with what logic do you claim that capitalism ended colonialism, an extension of itself? It's like you see capitalism as a transcendental good and socialism as a transcendental evil, attributing all the things you agree with to the god of capitalism, and all things you don't with the devil of socialism. Furthermore, the notion that capitalism only ended "the bad things" because they were no longer profitable and would be fine with their continuation if that were to change is.... not a good one.
My goal here is not a fight but a discussion, though to be honest some of your assertions do seem roundly baffling. I would as always be happy to discuss the specifics and provide my reasoning and argumentation for my response.
3
-
@mitscientifica1569 Imagine coping so hard that your only possible response is to just copy paste your same old disproven response, with your same old copy pasted insults. Cry harder, kid.
Exactly, nice try trying to rewrite Orwell's work, but in reality Orwell said this of the nazis:
"For at that date Hitler was still respectable. He had crushed the German labour movement, and for that the property-owning classes were willing to forgive him almost anything. Both Left and Right concurred in the very shallow notion that National Socialism was merely a version of Conservatism."
George Orwell openly admitted that the nazis were no more than anti-socialist conservatives. Orwell contrasted you who want to distance the nazis from your own preferred form of anti-socialism
The quote you're talking about was a piece of writing from an expert Orwell was quoting, not Orwell's view himself. That expert, similarly, was describing propaganda following the brief NAP between the socialists and the far right Nazis. Of course you don't care about that, as you copy pasted those quotes from a website, rather than reading the actual book. You can even see from the incomplete grammar of the statement in question. The fact is, Orwell saw the Nazis as the anti socialists they were.
This quote:
“National Socialism is a form of socialism, is emphatically revolutionary, does crush the property owner as surely as it crushes the worker.” [1]
In reality, in that very same book, Orwell proclaimed that "National Socialism was simply capitalism with the lid pulled off, Hitler was a dummy with Thyssen pulling the strings." The quote you mention is referencing the propaganda put out by stalin during their brief non-aggression pact.
Of course, even your own sources (copy pasted from another website) point out:
"Ownership has never been abolished, there are still capitalists and workers, and — this is the important point, and the real reason why rich men all over the world tend to sympathise with Fascism — generally speaking the same people are capitalists and the same people workers as before the Nazi revolution. "
He points out only that the state has some authority within the nazi regime, but critically, is only quoting the work of another author when he is naming these assertions, attributing them to their name and not agreeing with them. One must wonder if a pro-nazi individual like you would ever actually bother reading the source you copy and paste, but of course we know you would never dare to think an original thought.
Sources:
[1] George Orwell, Collected Works, vol. XII, p. 159.
[2] George Orwell, The Lion and the Unicorn: Socialism and the English Genius (1941), Part Two, Section 1.
//:/
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@UltraKardas
Oh, so the nazis pushed for equality among minorities, liberty, greater access to voting, greater rights for gay and trans people, and anti-fasicsm? Oh wait, no, the nazis pushed for anti-marxism, private property, capitalism instead of socialism, and capitalist policies that exist in capitalist countries like the UK today, like healthcare... that was privatized from what the Weimar Republic had. Was the Republic socialist, child?
The nazis privatized welfare, as I have proven to you in the past, as they hated welfare more than you. Similarly, social security is literally only a policy possible under capitalism. And yes! They took the anti-socialist policies of the far right Italian fascists and only lightly modified them.
And we've already been over that program child, I literally cited a historian that directly called it a privatized system largely funded by donations, and also called it a "fraud." But You don't care about citations, do you?
You're too cowardly, too much of a liar to face objective reality. you think that your bias is the same thing as the truth.
No no, you'll keep losing this argument forever, won't you? I'll be sure to keep winning :)
3
-
Wulf
Child, no fascists have ever been socialist, nor would they do something so silly as "admit" such. In fact, they most often admitted the exact opposite, to hating socialism and being proud members of the right, something you yourself can relate to. Of course, Third Position is by definition not a socialist movement in the slightest, rather, it is a movement outside of both socialism and capitalism, yet solidly within the bounds of right wing ideology. I mean, the first and second position are literally capitalism and socialism, are you asserting that one can be both an option and the alternative to that option? Of course, in actuality, the fact that fascist italy for example was known as right wing at the time is a simple one, and one long proven, by original sources from fascist times. 'Fascism can be best regarded as a compromise between pure individualistic Capitalism and Traditionalist conservatism, but is decidedly nearer to the latter than to the former. So, to answer your question, no fascists "admitted" they were socialist... because they weren't.
3
-
3
-
@SoloTravelerOffTheBeatenPath that is hilariously incorrect. First off, watch the short film Erbkrank. What's it about? Well, it's a propaganda film that the Nazis made, that shows the drain on the government that welfare, especially for disabled people, costed. The Nazis cut back welfare for any non-aryan, and threw the weak, poor, and disabled into camps. Their entire ideology was literally built on domination and supremacy, you think they cared about the poor? Your examples aren't even true. He introduced some benefits, but to only Aryans. That was shrinking the welfare state. As for free healthcare, he didn't "introduce" it, he kept (and defunded) the system from the Weimar republic. In most of his speeches he says he hates Jewish Capitalism, but not Capitalism itself. You can see that's true because he allied with many Capitalists and corporations,, like Ford, Koch, IBM, GE, GM, ect. Meanwhile, he was putting Socialists in camps for daring to be socialists. Literally nothing about Hitler's regime was Socialist, and the amount you have to stretch history to say otherwise proves as much.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@mandoskywalker4012
He was a totalitarian right wing traditionalist that opposed socialism, though. "National Socialism," a title hitler initially opposed and later purged the creators of, has nothing to do with socialism. He hated not just marxism, but communism, liberalism, progressivism, leftism, socialism. Socialism is defined as social ownership, which by definition must include class analysis and abolition. Even if we were to attempt to translate this definition over to race, not only would this not be socialism, hitler's actions and ideology don't call for any sort of racial social ownership. There is no such thing as "pure socialism based on race." Class is an integral part to socialism, since before marx. That's like saying "He hated republicans and wanted pure conservatism based on progressive, not traditionalist principles." You're just describing your run of the mill progressive.
3
-
3
-
@mandoskywalker4012
This response is painfully inaccurate, and I have to wonder how you've fooled yourself into believing any of this. First off, socialism has always included class, since long before Marx. Marx was open about him taking heavy, in some places total, inspiration from others before him. Similarly, socialism has never been defined as "State control of the means of production" given that most early socialist movements openly called for the abolition of the state. Marx's work had little to do with changing the economic policy of socialism, and more on a new way to justify it. His core ideology was certainly not fully showcased in a pamphlet. The elimination of class divide and social ownership of the means of production are, quite literally, the definition of socialism. Now, I'm sure you want to pretend that there was no left or right in the 30's, given the disgusting, horrific past of the right, but that statement is false. Not only did the left and right exist (and were described in those terms) but the left-right divide has existed as long as political ideology, as its based on characteristics, not labels. Hitler, like you, was a proud right wing anti-socialist. Your ignorance of basic economics can't change that. Hitler despised economic socialization, preferring privatization and supporting private industrialists. Socialization of the economy was, objectively, one of the greatest threats to his regime and power. Also, you can't socialize "the youth," not in an economic sense. In any case, the nazi government did not control "Every aspect of society," they were quite keen on letting private business exist unimpeded. If private profit and competition is capitalism, then there was certainly capitalism to be found. Again, I'd recommend you stop repeating TIK's debunked arguments. There is far more than one difference between them and their total ideological adversary, russia, but even your description of that "one difference" showcases your ignorance. He neither enacted, nor desired, control or ownership. And, I hate to break it to you, socialism cannot exist with private control or ownership in place. Control is not "all you need," nor did he desire/enact it. He thought that eliminating class was stupid... because he was a right wing anti-socialist. He wanted every German to compete and hold private aspirations... because he was a right wing anti-socialist. He thought that jewish people invented socialism, marxism, communism, internationalism, and so on. He worked with capitalists every step of the way. He saw the russian system and decided to take advantage of right wing hatred of it, to spread his own anti-socialist ideology.
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
How is pointing out the ideological nature of nazism defending it? Why do you deny these facts?
Oh, and to those of you like an unnamed SC here, that continue to push this old, disproven narrative. Mussolini rejected socialism. The existence of communist and socialist parties before Hitler's rule does not disprove the existence of conservative and right wing parties, which hitler relied upon for support, and was undoubtedly a right winger himself.
We can see the policies both hitler and mussolini employed - and we find that your narrative on them is lacking in historical reality.
When you put your biased revisionism before any notions of history, you are preferring to slander an ideology than see the actual grounds for their horrific crimes.
Trying to use the holocaust to make a statement about socialism is nonsense, ahistorical, and sadly denies the actual origin of the holocaust and the reasoning behind it, all for the purpose of your partisan political attack, and your hatred of others.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2